All right, so we're gonna go ahead and start this work session and I apologize to everybody who's watching
on Teams because it's gonna be very hard to follow what we're doing here audio-wise, video-wise,
et cetera. And I just have a couple things to talk through here.
Again, and just to restate that we do fervently believe that people are safer and healthier when they
live indoors, especially during winter months. We've continued to work with Health Net, City of Bloomington,
local not-for-profits to identify reasonable accommodations for folks who are currently at the Thompson
property. People are trespassing. People don't have adequate
Sanitation and it's terrible. There are no sanitary facilities present. The sheriff has indicated he
will not remove people from the Thompson property at this juncture. So this whole thing's postponed
indefinitely, but our hands are tied and we wanna move on to the next step. We wanna figure out what
can we do better? And it's not providing, we aren't providing
camping facilities based on our health code. We are outside the city of Bloomington, that is the city
of Bloomington property. We're outside their zoning laws. So to focus on that side of it isn't incredibly
helpful because that's not a solution. Thompson's not a solution for anybody. It's a short term.
It's what it is now. We understand it. We get it. And people wanna stay there. We hope for the best.
We really do hope for the best, but we fear the worst. And we don't want anybody to lose their lives,
to be harmed because they're out in the cold in this environment. It's gonna be terrible. And we do
have, there are warming shelters open this weekend, just to remind the public.
And they are available on our website, but it's essentially libraries and fire departments across the
county and across the city. So we encourage folks to help those who need it to get to a warming shelter
this weekend, especially because it's going to be zero at night. It's terrible, terrible. And
it's frightening. So we wanted to give you, you know, it's hard for us because
We wanted to, so we know nothing's happening next week. But when we set this meeting, we didn't know
that. And so from our side of it, please, if you give me a moment, from our side of it, what we tried
to do was set up a meeting as quickly as we could before the 15th. And we all have various meeting commitments.
and we couldn't all be there. The only time we could all be there was last night. And then, but we couldn't,
we didn't list a place, therefore it was against open door law for the meeting. We still are holding
our office hours. You'll see those and anybody's free to join those. We have heard a lot of things ascribed
to us in terms of
statements or actions that are not accurate. And it doesn't help. It doesn't help anybody to do that.
We want to give you this time and we can either rehash and talk about Thompson eviction that's not happening.
Or we can talk about what are we going to do to fix this, right?
Leave it up to you all and whatever you'd like to do. We are going to, I think we do have a signing
sheet somewhere, so we get folks to write their names. That would be great for the record. If you can,
that would be great. If you choose not to, that's on you, that's fine. But so really,
What you want to spend your time doing now is really up to you. And we're here and we're listening.
And we can't do right for doing wrong. Well, you move the conversation. Well, we had to. And right now
is the only time we could do it before next week. That doesn't mean future meetings can't be at night.
So this isn't the end. This is the step one. Right?
What would you all like to do? We're satisfied with the outcome of this conversation, hearing that our
eviction has been caused indefinitely here by the council and that the sheriff has no intention to enforce
it ever. We are happy to walk away from the table and leave you guys alone. What next? What?
What is it that impeded? I get that. That's why I'm saying, what next? What else can we do? After the
last 10 days, I would like you to not do anything. Could I posit a guarantee? We're already understanding
that the eviction is indefinitely held off. What's the harm in writing? We guarantee we won't evict
till April. Just that we have public record in writing,
You know, we can say you did a great thing, and you saved people, and it's great for you. Cheers all
around. And it also puts us at ease. Because right now, it's just saying, well, the sheriff wanted that,
so we can't not say that we won't. I think I don't know if Mr. Farrell can help us here. But.
Yeah, I think it'd be a different Jeff Cockroach counties here. I think that would be a very difficult
statement for the commissioners to make for for a variety of reasons. I think the biggest one is,
you know, we're not in compliance with the land use for the property. So, you know, if they said we're
not going to do anything till April 1st, but something else came around and the city says you're violating
our zoning, that's outside their control. I think the other thing the other thing that I would be resident
about is, you know,
From what you guys have described, right now it's fairly stable. What happens if it becomes unstable,
right? Which could happen. I think committing to, hey, we're going to not do anything no matter what
until a certain date kind of ties their hands if it does become unstable and something does need to
happen, right? I mean, those would be the concerns that I would voice to them.
I think signing that would be the easiest thing to do. But I don't think it would be honest to do that,
given what Mr. Cockrell's outlined. And we want, we're honest and we're transparent about this. We don't
have plans. And it may, it could be May, it could be March. It depends on what happens. And we can't
control that. There are so many things outside of our control.
That's the issue. And I appreciate the desire to have a date. We're not in a position to put a date
on it for either pro or con because it may go beyond or it may be shorter, right? It depends on those
events outside of our control. One, you do control it to an extent because y'all did issue an eviction
notice. And so you can take a part in putting that off.
until April, and if the city decides to try to carry this out, then I guess they'll have to deal with
us next. But why don't you just do your part in putting it out? Two, you mentioned one of the camps
would come unstable. From what I've seen in the years I've been organizing with the unhoused camps,
the one thing that I've seen make camps unstable is cops coming in and harassing people, and especially
evictions. I haven't seen anything else make a camp unstable. So you're saying one of the camps would
come unstable. You're manufacturing that situation.
Once again, I just want to reiterate what Ashley was saying. The best thing you can do is nothing. You
don't need to carry out this eviction. You don't even need to be posting this. You can just put it off
on your end. If the city wants to carry this out, then they're going to have to deal with this too.
But why are you dragging your feet? Yes, thank you. Sorry. I'd also be very happy to mention the reason
you signed this eviction notice, as you stated before multiple times, is for trespassing.
And it's not really a situation that can become more or less unstable because they're not going to be
doing any more or less trespassing. Right now, you've made a very clear reason behind the eviction.
You have faced opposition from the city council, from the sheriff, from the entire city of Bloomington
around that eviction and around its motivations. And you have made an indefinite notice. I would prefer
that we have a known notice.
because this is about an unchanging action. I don't think there's any clear control within the confines
of the motivation behind this eviction notice that you've signed. And so on the topic of transparency,
I think it would be good to have a transparent date so that we know if you do have plans, if you think
this eviction truly is necessary, that you have a date that you are aiming for, that you are reaching for.
What I've heard so far, and maybe there are more of these, but what I've heard is three things that
we've described as the problems of this. One is they're trespassing. Sure, that's true. I mean, I think
that's a made-up thing. It's a made-up law. It's not really a crime except if somebody wrote it down
in a book. And the fact is anybody here that's not Native American is trespassing. We all are.
And nobody needs to evict all of us just because of that. So trespassing is a made-up thing. We can
all agree it's whatever it is. Okay, the second thing I heard of is we don't have sanitary facilities.
It's not a sufficient living space out there. And that's fair. I would like everybody to have the privacy
of a bathroom and running water and whatever they need to actually live in a sanitary condition.
That's fixable, too. It's certainly at least as fixable as deciding that we don't want to evict them.
That's a fixable issue. And if there's going to be a statement that says we're going to set a date that
no matter what, we're not going to evict anybody before April 1st, given these conditions. One of our
conditions is we have to put bathrooms and running water out there. We can do that. Surely, we can come
up with a number for how much that's going to cost.
and compare that cost to how much it takes for people with guns to go out there and harass them. The
third thing I think of that I've heard from Mr. Cockrell is that it may become unstable, which is,
you know, with all due respect, that's one of the more big things I've ever heard in my life. Unstable,
is it unstable? Okay, yeah, sure. We can put that in our statement too. The statement is, we're going
to evict no earlier than April 1st, assuming we have sanitary conditions,
Assuming that it doesn't become unstable, come up with a real definition. Your attorney or attorney
can come up with an actual thing that means something. And based on whatever that definition is, we're
going to say, assuming that things don't become unstable, which means nobody with guns has to go out
there and harass people, which I think we can agree is the primary reason it would become unstable.
And assuming that these things are handled by the county and the city, if we need to get them involved,
assuming those things are handled,
We don't need to even call into question whether they're trespassing. We just say, we're not gonna do
anything. And instead of spending money on having people go out there and cause problems, we can spend
money, we can find money somewhere in our budget to give them bathrooms and to give them water. And
based on those things, based on the fact that we are upholding our own responsibilities, we won't do
anything to them until at least April 1st. Or if we wanna say,
until May 1st, or if we want to say until April 2027, I'd be okay with that, but I decide what that
date is. And then we just put some conditions in there. Assuming that we uphold our side of
this responsibility, we're not gonna do anything until then.
some kind of emergent situation that might change your ability to have a guarantee that we definitely
won't do this. I understand what's being said there. Something could come up. So a guarantee would be
inappropriate because that means something coming from people in this building. However, if you were
able to put in writing that you have no plans to do this, and as long as nothing changes, you don't
intend to do this,
I think that could still hold a lot of weight for the people who are depending on your word and have
hesitations about trusting that. Do you see what I mean?
issue that you're very concerned with. As for trash, I would like to also, along with quarter parties,
that would be fantastic, but a rolling dumpster out there, the community already self-polices, it organizes
trash cleanups, we have nowhere to put it. We're not gonna legal dump, because we don't commit crimes.
We bag it up, and then animals run through it, and so we don't know where to put it, but if you would
provide municipal services, and we'll write up the cost for that for X amount of months, you just have
a rolling dumpster, we'll clean it for you. A lot of these issues, like the community's already dealing with,
We just need the resources to make it happen for you. You know what I mean? Yeah, I think I don't want
to see any of this get breezed over. I just wanted to say you're saying that when there's a commitment
from the sheriff's department that there's that the evictions are not going to happen. This is city property.
So the part, so the Thompson area is, I thought you said that it was city. It's inside city limits.
Okay, so who's going to commit, commit that BPD isn't going to go in with guns? That would have to be
BPD. And so who do we reach out to? I would talk to BPD and the mayor's office. You know, our sheriff
is elected, but the chief of police is appointed, right? So that's three you have to work through is
the mayor and the city council.
Are you aware of if there are any plans? Are there any backdoor discussions with the county, I mean
with the city? Is there even any written eviction notice for the 15th that has been delivered out to
people at the camp? Well, that was delayed because folks were helping. And again, we want to thank those
folks who were helping get people into warmer places. And that's going to be so important for this weekend,
even before the 15th. But that's at this point.
You know, it is not, we're telling you it's not no longer in force. So if there's a decision for reasons
that have already been outlined to clear the space, and that could be April 1st, it could be May 1st,
it could be whenever, right? Because of an issue or an incident. We will,
issue a new notice with plenty of opportunity for folks who are staying there to get moved. Now, the
other thing I'm going to add, because we have a lot of things going on all at one time, as you may know,
we have been trying to secure a location and
the funding to develop our justice complex, which would replace the justice building on Seventh and
College. And we had a property identified. The county council said no. And we've had the Thompson property
for years. I don't know when we got it, but it's been years. It was 2001, I think.
2001 I believe. Yeah it's been a long time since we've owned that property. So I know we had talked
initially as a board and with our council colleagues in the county about trying to create some sort
of affordable housing and doing all these things and then it was oh this may be a site for the Justice
Center. So we actually had the space investigated for that purpose. It would cost so much money and
take so much time to prepare that property and
that we moved on and identified the North Park site. Now, at that meeting of the county council when
they said no to the North Park site, we actually had on that agenda the sale of the Thompson property
because we didn't see any need to hold onto it, right? Because if we're not gonna use it for what we
thought we were gonna use it for back in 2001, why are we holding onto it? We could use the money to help
fund the justice center project elsewhere. But we pulled that agenda item because we don't know what
the council wants to do. But at some point, that property may go up for sale. When that goes up for
sale, it is out of our hands. The council has to approve the sale. That is what they said on Tuesday.
That's correct. Yes, that's right. I think it's in your hands then. The council seems so far from the
letter they sent to you.
quite uninterested in this eviction and thus in the sale of this property. It's not a matter of, there
are two separate things that are coming together. The sale of the property is because we don't have
a purpose for it and we will need the money to build, to put toward the building of the justice center.
And that happens to overlap with the fact that right now there are people staying there, right?
So that is something else that's going to potentially come up, right? But everyone will know. Everyone
will know if it happens. Everyone will be aware. It will be on both a council agenda. It will be on
a commissioner's agenda. It's not gonna be done secretly. It will all have to happen at a number of
public meetings. But the sale would be your choice, yes.
The sale is a choice would be county government, it would be council and commissioners would both have
to decide to do it. So you are responsible for approving? We're one party of two that has to approve
it. You could veto it. And they could choose to not approve it. So it seems like it's still very much
is in your hands if it is wanting to be put up for sale because you can say no, you can veto the movement.
And while, yes, the city council can say yes, although they seem to have been against the situation
as well. It's not up to the city council, it's the county council. My apologies. That's okay. I just
want to make sure we're all clear. No, no, I appreciate that. I appreciate that. So even if the county
council approves this, you can say no and still maintain this encampment. It's still, so it is within
your power, even if the county government wants to sell this land. We are breaking our own health code
in terms of having a campsite.
and we are not following city zoning. And so I can't control what the city is going to do about that
part of it either. So I hear you. I know people are, and it's been postponed indefinitely. We can take
under advisement what you're asking for, but that's not something that I don't think
any of the three of us are willing to do a writing right now, but I'm certain that we will talk about
it and make a decision together about what we are willing to commit to writing. And that's all I could
offer. Yes, and so Gabriel had asked me to speak to what I saw in the camps, and I didn't see everything,
but what I saw was
And I interacted with a number of presidents, including Ash. Thank you very much for your generosity
in speaking to me and showing me and opening your day to Councilor Henry. Yes, I'm sorry. I'll go on
to the councilor, Hayden Jordan-Madera, speaking about going to the campus and what she said. So TSE,
can you mute people until we can call on them? We will call on folks on Teams.
What I saw was a lot of people who were trying to do the best that they could with very little.
And so that's, I think, what everybody was spaced out. There were a lot of people who were not there,
who come back intermittently. There were some small piles of trash. There were tents that were, some
of which were insulated, some of which were not. I think we saw one cap the entire time. We were there,
which was about two and a half hours.
It was revelatory. So again, I thank you for making that experience possible. When we talk about the
types of events that would prompt us to clean out the camp, what I really think of is what happened
in January of 2024. And when Mayor Kerry Thompson just got elected, we had, I believe, two murders and
homeless camps, and those were not caused by people with guns. That was caused by someone who unfortunately
had a mental illness who, and we have horrible
horrible systems for managing mental illness. And the solution that she saw was to clean out the camp
because that happened. Because it's impossible to handle that any other way other than sending in people
with guns. And that makes the entire situation unstable. And so we don't anticipate that happens. We
hope that that will not happen because one of the things that we
learned last weekend was that if someone who is unstable comes into the camp, there are a system of
rules. And people work together to sort of get each other help. And they work together to provide a
safety net in the encampment for people who are part of that community. And so my guess is that if somebody
came in with that profound mental illness, hopefully someone would see that and report that. And so
there's a system of trust that exists in that camp, just as there is in society.
And so, but it's that type of event. It's not sending in people with firearms who are part of law enforcement
because again, that's not going to happen here on the county side. And so that's what's been represented.
That's what's going to happen. But when we say that this is not going to happen, indefinitely we mean
until certainly the weather is warmer. And I think also part of the conversation that needs to take
place is getting a protocol
in place, getting a series of discussions in place, talking with not only those of you who are present
today, but with frontline workers who are there in the community as well. And so obviously that's not
going to be part of today's conversation, but that's something else that we very much need to work toward
as well. I know that you can't give us the date because it's a moving target. However, part of the biggest
reason that resources were scrambled so quickly and part of the reason
This has gone so poorly for you that you gave seven days notice. I know the county only has to give
48 hours notice, I believe. Can we ask a guarantee that you give us a 30 day notice? Allow us to get
our resources out. Like I said, we don't support eviction ever at all. At the very least, you have to
give people time. Seven days is completely inadequate. I think if you are actually going through a process,
a 30 day notice should be a very easy ask. And I think that will make, that'll build trust.
And I think that's important. So I think that's something that I would really like to see codified.
I think it's super easy. I also wanted to hark on, because you brought this up immediately, I agree.
People are safer indoors than they are outdoors. However, there aren't enough indoors. I'm not sure
if you heard me or other people in our speech. According to all of the data we have in town, there are
259 fixed beds. And that includes B-Source. That is 45 beds short of the January census of homeless folks.
So like, while I appreciate the sentiment people are safer inside, there isn't enough inside. Once you
understand there isn't enough inside, you understand that evicting is pushing people not indoors, but
further outdoors with less items. So like, I wanted that to be incredibly explicit that no action taken
during the winter is helpful. No action bring people inside. Can you tell me then, and it's certainly
not what we've heard Angie from,
from the health net in terms of beds. And it is always a moving number of how many spaces are available,
et cetera. So we need to figure out how to find out how to create more short-term emergency shelter
spaces. Yes, I'm hearing that. No, okay.
Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
We keep talking about sanitation issues. We keep talking about shelter beds. We keep talking about people
being safer inside. There's never been any argument about people being safer inside. And it is not the
case that we are advocating for people to stay outside forever and ever. That's not what anybody is
necessarily asking for here.
We understand we're not activists for living on the fringes of society. We are trying to protect people
because they don't have any other options right now. I'd like to return to the point about asking for
in writing agreement that 30 days is going to be the new heads up time. Just recently, I've been helping
some of the folks in the camps move out of Browns Woods, which is, I understand,
that was not you guys, but the very first time I ever have seen a needle in these camps was in a trash
pile, right? In a dedicated trash zone. The very first time I encountered human feces was because the
camp was being torn apart, right? So like all of these other issues, this is irrelevant. We really need
to quit talking about this. None of this matters. The sanitation part of it. People do what they can
with what they have, because again, they're people, right?
be clean and healthy to the best of their ability. But again, seven days is not nearly enough. I had
to bust my ass. I'm so exhausted. And we couldn't take everything that people needed. They didn't have
bedding for the same night that we were moving. And I'm dodging the chain flail attached to the bulldozer,
which is still running even though we're
We're just desperately trying to squeeze in there, and we had permission to do that, right? You see
what I'm saying? It's irrelevant. One of the camps that's closing. Can we just, I've been notified that
people can't hear very well, so what I'd like to do is read it. I'll just pull it closer to make it
easier. Or you can pass it around as you want to speak. I'm sorry I'm rambling a bit, but I want to
reiterate 30 days is a very easy ask.
I think we could probably get a commitment to that. It doesn't really change anything for you guys,
right? From here on out, that is a thing you could guarantee. And again, that little time, I put my
life on the line potentially to help these people get what they needed to survive the same night. So
is that possible? Can we get a yes or no on 30 days?
It makes everything so much safer and easier if we have time to gather resources to do that work. I
know that their period of time is different, but I'm just curious. It's 30, which is why we would ask
for that. It would be consistent and then it would make everything easier when people come down. Like,
yeah, this is a really acute crisis precisely because we had 30 days for one camp, which is manageable,
still really hard, still an incredible ask.
but then seven days was desperate, and it was on the same day for both of them. Can we get a yes or
no to that? Can we get a yes or no on that? Well, we can't really take an official vote. I will say
that I support it, and, you know, obviously, if possible, I would even do more, but we need a short...
Well, let's write something up, and we can...
We're asking for it now because it's very easy. I just said I support it. I support it. And what we
could do is work to get it on the agenda for next week's meeting. And nothing's happening next week.
So we could officially vote on it still before Christmas. Are you all right with that? Yes. And we can't
just make a decision like that. We're not the mayor.
against the law for us to do that. We can say we support it, but it won't be binding, binding until
we vote on it next session. Are you all good to make your constituents to vote that through next week,
then? Yes? That issue, yes. And then we have others to talk through. So we have to figure out the remainder
of it. So we have, you know, I'm keeping a list of the things that we have to talk about. So yes, we'll
be voted through next week. So I think it's a very good point.
can't just promise something in this room that could be binding. There's no way to do that. But I think
you can come up with a date when you will have a draft of what your statement will be, what our statement
as a county will be. And then once we have that in front of us on that date, publicly post it. And more
importantly, post it for the people who are most directly involved. We can put it out there on a
on a board or whatever it takes. And then there are other places in town where we can do that. The community
kitchen is one. As of that date, have a period of public comment. And then at the end of that public
comment, come up with, you know, maybe the next draft of it, do some comment on that. With the understanding.
That pushes us into next year, if you're okay with that, because there's no way we could do all of that
before next Thursday. I just want to point that out. Yes.
There are, yeah, sure. There's also three hands online as well. Yeah, that's who's winning to get let
in. Yeah. I agree with Congress trying to operate in the spirit of compromise. I definitely think that's
important here. However, none of us are going to be more out. I was in 30 days. My lupus is not going
to be cured in 30 days. So maybe another compromise that I would like to posit is potentially agreeing
not to sell until spring.
since that seems to be the largest mitigating factor of the property no longer being available. Did
I hear him say don't sell until spring? I would tell you just the mechanics of what we have to do in
order to sell it. It's probably a two to three month process anyway. It's not going to happen.
So mechanically I don't think it could happen until March at the earliest. So why are you using that
as a reason to try to evict now?
No, I'm not using that as a reason. I'm just telling, what I'm saying is this county, this property
will not always belong to the county. It may be sold in a year, it may be sold in five years. So to
set up a series of rules, et cetera, at some point we're not gonna be owners of the property. That's
all I'm saying. I'm just being transparent.
so that in a year, if the property goes on for sale, we don't have people coming back going,
we told this, we could use this for this forever. No, I'm saying that this property belongs to the county
now, but it will, at some point, no longer belong to the county. It will not happen. I'd say it would
take at least 90 days, if not more, to sell that, and that would be expedited, and I don't see that
happening either.
I think it'd be extremely difficult to sell it in six months, but I think 30 days is kind of a, or 90
days is kind of a bare-based, if we got lucky, minimum, maximum. So can we go ahead and have the folks
on Teams one at a time speak? TSD, if you could do that. I cannot see the screen from here.
Thank you. ER is the first one. Can you guys hear me? Yes, thank you. Okay, wonderful. Thank you, everybody.
My name is Erin Reynolds Nyland and I am the Housing Solutions Director with Heading Home of South Central
Indiana. Our Executive Director spoke on Tuesday night, I believe, about
Like just appreciating everybody's work so far, I would like to say, and kind of give a quick background
about the organization and my role in the organization. Recently, we were able to get a grant from the
Lilly Endowment to deploy six street outreach case managers who are focused on housing those who are
unsheltered in Monroe County. And since late October, we've deployed five case managers
who are actually, I think, interacting a lot with the people who are in this room. And on behalf of
them and myself, the community, thank you guys for the consistent support that you are providing to
our unsheltered neighbors. And I want to say that I really would love to figure out how we can align
and resource, not share, but to be able to know
how to leverage each other and unify our efforts and say that we were all going about this and knowledge
of awareness of what each other are doing, because I would really hate for any kind of resources to
be duplicated. But if we can align and unify for those who are at the forefront of this issue,
I would really, really enjoy that. And then, too, I do want to say that
Overall, so I supervise the street outreach case managers and three diversion case managers, but I'm
also part of more systematic supports and developing those and aligning everything that has to do with
trying to house and make sure we keep our unhoused neighbors safe. And so part of that is coordinating
and orchestrating the deployment of
housing case managers once we learned that this was going to be shut down. So I was able to try to help
coordinate at least a message and consistent engagement to make sure that our neighbors aren't flying
under the radar. Nobody's going missing through displacement, which makes our jobs a lot harder and
making sure that these people are safe and engaged. And so more systematically outside of the direct
service, I am working on implementing
and have grand ideas that I want all of you guys to be at the table for when it comes to a protocol.
There is a Heading Home Encampment Guide, I think it's called. It's not a protocol necessarily, but
it's a guide that takes evidence-informed experiences into what is a dignified and humane way. If an
encampment must be shut down, this is the way that we go about it.
myself, Mary Morgan, who is going to be communicating with the county council member or commissioners
to say like, hey, heading home can help organize and unify these encampment protocols. And if these
things do have to be, if the camps have to be closed, then this is exactly who is mobilized and when,
and what are the terms under which we're
we're closing the camps if it has to happen at all because I totally agree evictions, especially in
winter are undignified and put a lot of people in a really, it puts people in a bind and risks their
safety. So I just wanted to come on and say that there are overarching protocols that we have
we have a path forward with. And I see so much opportunity here to move forward and to unify and to
share each other's passion and yeah, just really work together. So please keep just like awareness of
kind of what I'm doing. If you are curious about reaching out to me or how I can reach out to you, I
would love to get together
Let you guys know what the what the opportunity is and when those conversations start happening because
it doesn't happen alone. It doesn't happen with Just one person or just a group, right? Like you guys
have gotten a really you guys gotten really really far with the opposition and the advocacy that you've
done and I think that's incredibly admirable and I would love to team up and use your experience and
support and
creating a protocol that is dignified and safe. So please, my name is Erin Reynolds Nyland. Please feel
free to reach out, find my name on the website. And thank you just all for being here and the work that
you're doing for our community. Thank you, Erin. We haven't set a timer on anybody, but we'd ask commenters
to keep their comments brief because we do have an overall
Hello, my name is Zach Ammerman. I'm a Bloomington resident. I just want to say, one, I think it's,
I want to thank you for postponing the eviction. I think it's kind of a shame that you would be considering
a winter eviction in the first place to begin with. I think it's, but it's nonetheless positive that
you are now postponing it indefinitely. So I think that's good. I also want to say,
Well, I think 30 days is bare minimum. The fact that it sounds like you're maybe, you maybe got that
down coming down the pike and you don't have a formal agreement yet. That's also positive. So thank
you for that. Um, but beyond that, before, before all of that, I also, I just want to point out that
I've heard from several different people in, um, County officials in the meeting so far. So at least
three or four different reasons why you might one day need to evict them anyway. Um, the health code
zoning, maybe one day you might theoretically want to sell the property.
That sounds to me like you're kind of grasping at straws trying to find reasons why you might one day
want to evict them. If you do that, where do you think people are going to go? You're just moving the
problem around from one place to another. And if you actually want to solve the problem, homelessness
is a housing problem. If you actually want to long-term solve the problem, you need to spend the next
six months working around the clock getting these people housing and resources. That's the answer.
And so I appreciate the progress that's been made in this meeting, it sounds like, and the postponement.
That's positive, but if you actually want to solve the problem, we have answers, housing and resources.
Focus on that for the next six months instead of focusing on trying to find reasons that you might want
to theoretically victim. Thank you. Thank you. And that's exactly what we can talk about if you all
want to, which is what does that housing look like? How do we do it?
What do those resources look like? How do we do it? I don't have anything to say. I think Matt would
like to be paired with the case manager to discuss that. OK. I, again, personally, just cannot. I've
never found a way to be indoors long term. I take mostly seasonal work outside.
I camp outside most of the year. I'm from Michigan, so the winter doesn't really bother me very much.
It's better than passing out all the time. Yeah, just on the issue of selling the property,
so my understanding is that county has to approve it so that could take place
You guys have decision making over when that could happen? Could you guys ever not, like, could you
make, put it in writing, you know, to say that you would not sell during dangerous weather, inclement
weather situations? Is that, or, I mean, if this is the issue right now, I imagine if you have the option
to sell and it would take two or three months, if it's November, you could say,
What do you want to sell it so badly in the first place? It's taxpayer money. And constituents are using
it to live, right? Why sell it? It was actually for sale for a long time. But you can pull that back.
You don't need to keep trying to sell it. Right?
People have said, ideally, you don't sell it, so people can live there indefinitely. So why sell it?
I think people live on that property is not a long-term sustainable solution because the city will come
after that problem and solve that their own way. The state will come after that problem and solve it
their own way. And sometime, somewhere, there will be something that happens on that property for which
we are liable. And we can put a temporary stop to the problem, but the temporary stop is not a permanent stop.
And so y'all do the city or the state's job of evicting it now, rather than laying them take, you know,
that action. It's better we keep local control over local problems than cede that to the state, yes.
If I may introduce, because I know you want to move beyond this conversation, and I'm glad that we have
an understanding that the evictions are happening pertinently. I think the concerns of my friend here
are incredibly valid that long-term solutions not to our living are something that the county should pursue.
Primarily, ordinance changes to allow camping in certain scenarios or even a property that you approve
that you have resources, bathrooms, resources for. Changing the ordinances around tiny home complexes,
low barrier housing. And I mean, incredibly low barrier housing. This one cannot get into housing. So
they will likely live the majority of their life outdoors.
The county does have the ability to appropriate a parcel of land, push for zoning, buy a purchase at
retrofit of the resources, and make sure that people like Ash, and there are many people with special
cases, do have a place to stay even if housing is not an intended long-term solution. So I'd say primarily
one, locate land by, or maybe private donations. I'm sure people have land that they're willing to donate
for this cause. Establish what resources you need to have present, to be in compliance with health code,
petition the council for that money, make it happen and build it out. And hopefully you can do that
before you'd ever have to take this camp. We can move people to a stable spot. A lot of people are not
in long-term on-house situations out in the woods, but the lack of stability from the fictions means
that they have to restart. Maybe get a new phone or bottom documents. And so a stable campground or
a stable, incredibly low barrier housing is a jumpstart into housing, right? Or it is a long-term solution
for those who cannot be housed.
people have moved into like long-term housing solutions because that is something you can do and if
you don't want to see this issue to the state you can give that commitment right you can not sell the
land until people have that long-term housing because otherwise you're just gonna be causing more harm
by evicting prematurely without actually having any sort of plan why not develop that plan despite however
long it might take
We can take all of that under advisement, but I will tell you that that's a very nebulous concept to
say long-term housing, because there will be new people. There will be people who have found housing,
hopefully. But then there will be new people. And then when does that stop? And so we'd have to nail
that down legally. And it's a concept that we can talk through.
And if I may speak, that's all right. Well, I absolutely agree with that. I think there was a lot more
you were saying on that than just long-term housing. I think that's a bit of an unfair statement to
just summarize it as that. I think you had a lot more plans in mind and a lot more pertinent suggestions
around the concept of low barrier housing that can have new people come in. It was still not like a
permanent solution for the individual person, but rather a way for people to have a safer form of shelter
and housing for long-term issues like homelessness. And so I think you personally gave a lot of great
points, and I think giving attention to those points and that plan could really give you what you're
talking about.
I really think it's more valuable to hear their opinion than even mine. So I want to make sure that
maybe next, would you like to speak a little bit about it? Well, I just wanted to point out, I think
Commissioner Thomas and I may have found our first piece of common ground this evening. I think some
of my comrades are forgetting the nature of homelessness. Many of us are outside for all kinds of reasons.
Everyone has a very unique story.
one common thread is moderate to severe mental illness. I'm thinking of one of my neighbors specifically
that has severe paranoid episodes. And every time the drones visit us to monitor us for a little while,
she gets quite inconsolable. And the reason that we're able to deal with her in our current, deal with
her, that sounds very dismissive. The reason we're able to support her in our current situation is that
I mean, one, like Commissioner Madeira pointed out, we are quite spread out. We do keep our space. And
then two, we are de-escalation trained. We have been homeless around other homeless people for a long
time. We know how to talk each other down. And if she were in some sort of housing situation, maybe
she got placed at Crawford or what have you, the second she had an incredibly severe episode and
you know, had some sort of interaction with, you know, any of the staff there or what have you, she
would be unhoused again. And so I think that is one of the most important reasons to underscore that
there has to be a different solution than evicting. We're not all going to be inside. Clearly not all
of us want to be in the woods forever, but just there has to be a better
solution, then either you go inside or we're going to throw all of your stuff in the dumpster every
three months. That's very weird. Did you want to add anything? Not really. Yeah, I understand. They've
basically been saying a lot of things. I thank you, though. And the reason I honed in on the specific
question about long-term housing was because that was the question that was posed.
but I have written down low barrier housing campsite with facilities, tiny homes. I wrote it down. I
appreciate that. So I just want to make sure you knew that I'm listening. No, no worries at all. I've
made great precedents for that. Thank you. What I have is a question we're going to ask you, Matt, and
if you'd like to add anything to this. What I'm imagining, based on some of the issues with the Thompson
property being city-owned, technically, or it's inside city limits so the county owns it,
So there is complications with that. Let's say hypothetically that this land or land of a comparable
or bigger size that existed was county owned and there was, my question for you all would be, is there
any way for there to be land in the county that would be similar to the Thompson property land
but would be outside of the city or state jurisdictions. And then my question for you guys would be,
let's say this land that exists now or this hypothetical land that could be donated or could be community
fundraised or what have you. That land, what would be maybe a vision for it just existing as the Thompson
property is now
but without having that looming possibility of city eviction, is that kind of, would that be the most
satisfactory outcome? Or if that was the situation, what would then you want to see from the county
to then support it? I'm seeing three primary concerns with that.
The first being that it would not be possible for land in the county to be outside of state jurisdiction.
The second being that if it were outside of city limits, it would be quite far from any of the services
that we currently maintain. We wouldn't be able to visit the warming centers. We wouldn't be able to
go to the library, the food banks, any of that. And then the third is that I'm assuming one of the
building code violation, or yeah, I believe building code violations that was shared with us is that
if we were an official campground, we would need a security force. If there were a security force monitoring
this property at any time, it puts people who may have more severe issues closer to people who, even
if they did not have guns, even if they had everybody camera in the world, all of the mitigations that
we love to talk about for policing, they would still have the power to arrest
And I would like to highlight the story of our beloved Miss Kim that we lost this fall. She was arrested
on some misdemeanor charge and died in holding. And the cause of that was never really fully determined
to my knowledge. No one really quite knows the story that happened there. And I think no one's honestly
really looking into it.
But, you know, we miss the crazy funny old lady that used to busk on the side of Seminary Park. So.
There's a couple people online. Yeah, why don't we bring someone on? There's one hand raised, TSG, if
you could bring them on.
Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, this is Katie Norris with Hotels for Homeless. I missed the beginning of this,
also another issue with teams. From what I understand, the eviction has been stayed. I would like to
express my deepest gratitudes. I truly cannot thank you enough. Each and every person that had a say
so or was able to help make that decision, thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. As far as what Erin Reynolds was saying from heading home, I would
just want to absolutely second that in every way, shape or form. I would like to collaborate with any
and all other social services or organizations or groups who would like to help. I will go ahead and
give anyone that's listening here my cell phone number. You can reach out to me. I answer my phone 24
seven 365.
My phone number is 812-219-8817. Our email address is h4hbloomington at gmail.com, with the number four
being in between the two letter Hs. If there is anybody here who can think of anything that we can do
to help, please let us know. You can call me, text me, email me.
We do have a lot of short-term and long-term solutions in the works. Clearly, Hotels for Homeless offers
hotels. We also offer telephones to help people get in contact with us so we don't lose track of them,
because that is a big thing. I remember in 2020, with the seminary eviction, it took me 31 hours to
find 28 people. And I mean, I didn't get a stop.
I was on the phone while I was using the restroom. I was on the phone while I was eating. My children
got zero attention, and it was a nightmare. It was an absolute nightmare. So if this is going to happen
at some point, the first thing we'd like to offer is cell phones to everybody so they can be in contact.
The second would clearly be hotel rooms if it was an emergency weather situation, which I pray that
it never is because that is insane.
And then also casework. As far as long-term solutions, we have some other organizations in the works.
We have Tommy's trailers. We own a trailer. We would like to give it away to somebody. That is affordable
housing. We have plans to get more. We are working with multiple different trailer courts. It's between
five and $600 lot rent. That is affordable housing. We're working with area 10 that has an apartment
open right now for someone over the age of 55.
We are working with a veterans unit who is there to provide trailers just to veterans and housing just
to veterans. We are starting Kirk's Cars, which is going to allow transportation to be given away at
no cost to those who are experiencing street homelessness, including drivable RVs with beds in the back
of them. We need help with all of these things and this eviction
We're getting ready to do our Christmas program, which I'll tell you this morning when I showed up,
I explained to my family that we've done this for six years. If this eviction goes through,
there's no way, no way we will be able to do it. Our resources will be sucked dry in a matter of moments.
So thank you for that, because now we will be able to do that. Sorry, I lost my train of thought with
the Christmas program.
But we wanna make this happen. We wanna offer all of these resources, short-term and long-term, and
we wanna work with anybody and everybody who also wants to work with us on these, and we are open to
suggestions, ideas, and also, if anybody in the world can volunteer at the emergency winter shelter,
please, dear God, go volunteer at that winter shelter, please. That's all I got for at the moment, unless
anybody has any questions.
If we unmute them, it will still show muted until they unmute. So both have to be unmuted. Yeah. So
it's an odd thing with teams. They left the meeting. Yes, we can. I thought I heard someone. They said
they left the meeting. Oh, shoot. OK. OK. They're still there. Yeah, hands up again.
with hell because the whole meeting they were on can you hear me finally can you finally hear me yes
this is literally the only time on teams today that it has allowed me to unmute myself i'm just going
to go on record for that maybe find a different streaming platform and now i can't hear you all at all
so i'm going to keep talking hoping that you can hear me um
As this has been patchy, there's a possibility that this point has already been made. We're talking
about the property being up for sale, issues with state and city zoning and codes. There was an idea
that was floated around about the property being able to be sold to a nonprofit organization or a private
organization to kind of bypass that.
like to float that as a potential. I don't know what heading home status is. I think they're a 501c3
and I'm not sure if that's something that heading home has looked into. I do also want to say I really
appreciate Erin coming on here today and I'm trying to ask this question like knowing that everybody
is like earnestly trying to show up where they can but if Erin is still here I don't know that our people have met
any of your outreach team. And that is speaking for like those of us who are doing outreach at RCA as
well as the folks who live there.
not, like the connection's not linking. And I do like earnestly mean that not in a like hostile or accusatory
way, just of like, where is that missing link happening? And how can we bridge it? Because it does really
sound like, especially after your executive director showed up and after you showed up that you wanna
create the opportunity for this collaboration. So let's find a way to do it for sure. That's my kind
of thought around there. I think, you know,
The Thompson properties already owned by the county right now, and it's 95 acres roughly. It already
has people who are living there. We have underscored that not everybody is going to be able to find
a permanent housing solution. And frankly, if we can even try to put a timeline on housing crisis and
houselessness solutions, then like you're braver than me. I don't foresee this being a better issue
sooner. I see it being a bigger problem with federal government decisions and state government decisions.
would be remiss to even attempt a timeline. I think right now the only thing we can do is look at protecting
the assets that exist already for the community and how they're being served. And so I do really urge
considering number one, not selling the Thompson property. And number two, if you do sell it, selling
it specifically to use as a bridge program of some sort. And if that has to be through 501C3, then
That's an avenue to explore. But this is the only way that we can actually keep people safe with the
power that we have at the county level. And I am done on that. Thank you. I'm glad you can finally hear
me. I would love to support ordinance changes in small communities. There are still those who cannot
enter even low barrier housing.
So one, I'll be fighting for you against the planning commission, because I love your policy. But two,
I know that one of the things that was talked about in a camping facility is the need for security.
And cops are, even SSOs, are implicitly escalatory, because they have the implicit state power to commit
violence against people via arrests. Whatever else police do, they brutalize. So police aren't an option.
The community will not trust a place with a strong police presence.
That's just history. History has done that. And what I would like to propose as maybe an alternative,
and we can look into the legality of these avenues, is working with the community in a self-pleasing
way. Maybe they get organized into a 501c3. You have a tax number. You can slap on it. You can send
it off, right? But the community itself and citizens, concerned citizens, can help make sure everyone's
OK, do check-ins, wellness checks, and show that the community's safe.
without the need for police involvement. And I understand that involving police makes security easy
because they're already legally covered. But if we can find a way to outsource that to us, we are willing
to take on that burden. We're willing to really hold the reins here and walk with you guys through this
process. But at the end of the day, police will never create a space that long-term on-house people
want to be in. Just a quick correction.
I don't think planning is against these. I don't think they've ever been presented with a formal plan.
Exactly. Exactly. There are some limitations in state law regarding tiny homes and mobile homes and
things like that that we can't overrule. We have to follow. So that's actually one of the things that
we've been talking through is how to create a tiny home community. How do we get that built?
How do we do it? Where can we do it?
How do we manage the septic sewage side of it? But I think a lot of these solutions will require public
tax dollar investment, right? And that's the bigger question in my mind is let's pull together ideas,
but let's also be realistic about what it's gonna cost.
and then put those things forward and see what the council, because the council does finances, we're
executive legislative, right? So the council's in charge of the money. So they would have to be the
ones to do that. But it's good to have proposals to put forward to them. What I'd really like to see
us do is create
because I don't think this is just a county issue and I do understand it's also a city issue and obviously
the city's in the county, right? So I think it would be really useful to have a conversation because
I think, and I'm gonna speak for me at this moment, not my colleagues. I'm just speaking for me. We've
put millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, whether it be
American Rescue Plan Act money or state dollars or grant dollars from private not-for-profits. We put
in millions of dollars to try to address this problem, and I am utterly disappointed at the results
we've had so far. And I'm going to be honest about that, because I don't think the community has received
what it should have received.
yes yes yes but but i do feel like we need to have a conversation with um members of the county council
member of the board of commissioners members of the city council somebody from mayor's office or the
mayor herself i think we need to have a ground zero let's start this conversation all over again and
and tackle this in a way
that will actually address it. Heading home was supposed to be, because there are all these entities,
Wheeler, Beacon, et cetera, and they're all competing against one another for money. And then they're
less efficient as a result. So heading home was supposed to overcome that, right? The idea was heading
home was supposed to overcome those inefficiencies by working together. And I know we've got some veteran
housing and I know some things have improved, but I've
I had bigger hopes than what came out of it. So I'd really like to invite the city to that conversation,
to invite a member of county council that conversation and start that conversation all over again. What
are we going to do and how are we going to do it? And how much is it going to take money-wise, effort-wise,
how do we do it? And I think we need to start again and do it right this time. That's my take on it.
So I'm only speaking for me.
Okay, so I'm gonna try to lay out some things I think has been stated very clearly and Ash and Matt,
if y'all want to jump in at any point, clarify anything, add to anything, please do. So firstly, y'all
have laid out a few reasons for trying to evict this property at some point or another down the line.
One, you want to sell the property, which I mean I think we've argued against that in the first place and
It seems like the council would be willing to block that at any point that you try to do so from folks
that we've talked to on the council. Because yeah, we see a purpose of this land that is being met for
constituents. Bless you. And so yeah, I mean, that's one thing. Does that seem accurate of why are we
trying to sell this land when it's there and being used potentially? Two, another reason why you're
trying to carry out these evictions is you're claiming that there are sanitation issues.
It sounds like some folks went out and saw that those issues have always been blown out of proportion.
That's always been a talking point of justifying inhumane treatment beyond what's already done.
But also, who are y'all to decide what is unsanitary when folks are living there and are satisfied with
how it is and have also made very reasonable asks of maybe have the restrooms that are nearby open longer term.
So I think that's also been a viewpoint. Number three, you're saying that people will be safer inside
than outside. And y'all have not been able to ever provide that on an adequate scale. But once again,
I think it's been made clear why clear people off of where they have established their homes and throw
their property away. And how is that in any way making things safer? Secondly, Ash and other folks have
laid out very clearly that that is like,
Yeah, indoor housing is not at all a solution for everyone. And so my question is, another reason is
that y'all are saying that the city and the state would step in and carry out an eviction at some point
or another if y'all don't do this. My question is, those are the reasons I think I've heard so far.
It seems like it's pretty clear that while the county, city, state, government are all trying to figure out
y'all do to do this, you know, like indoor housing solutions for folks. That also this land is very
useful right now for camping and just long term, like for people to live because everywhere else has
been cleared repeatedly. So why not just have that land set aside as it is, not trying to sell it, not
trying to clear it from time to time, but just have it be there for people to stay permanently. And
I don't get why y'all are wanting to step in and take on the role of clearing it just because, oh, the
city and the state might do so.
I mean, you saw what we're doing here. We're opposing this in any way that we can. So we'll do the same
if needed on another scale. Also, y'all can just have those conversations and put that pressure on them
yourselves. Who cares if the relationship is strained or whatever? It's still your responsibility,
your job, as you say at the start of every single commissioner meeting, to be fighting for everyone
within your constituency and to be fighting for the rights of everyone. So once again, why are you trying
to clear this thing?
whatever reasons you have given that I think have been clear are not actually backed up by anything
material. Like, does that sound like...
stupid, like, hey, can I get $10 for this? They make themselves personally available. I have several
people's cell phone numbers in here for any sort of emergency that were to go wrong. But that being
said, if cost is the concern, I'm pleased to have saved you $35,000 on Monday. The health net contract
that was approved today, I believe, was $175,000.
I think I've seen a health net on the ground once the entire time I've lived out there. Do you see them
more often? I don't stay out there all day, so I haven't seen anybody. Do you see them downtown ever,
like at the services or hanging out anywhere near the library? Every once in a while. Every once in
a while, OK. My understanding is it's reported that they're going out every single day, multiple times
a day, is what they're putting in their reports to the people to pay them.
read the heading home plan for 2025 or 26, I believe 25 was the most recent year for my Betty Bayag
story on Monday evening. I was a little concerned that this is touted as like this is the major plan
that our community has come together and put and I saw exactly one lived experience consultant in the
people that wrote it.
I mean, there are good points in the Heading Home Plan. There are bad points in the Heading Home Plan.
This is not to harpoon any agency that's here and trying to do the work. It just seems like, as others
have stated before, nonprofits are just not managing their money correctly. And I mean, the people here
before you,
I don't know if you've seen the meme about the guy that gets mad about his bank and calls to annoy them
until they go and fix the ATM. And he screams at them, I have more fish and tape and willpower than
your entire organization. These people have more fish and tape and willpower than your entire organization.
So anything, if they had to file for a nonprofit, if they had to work together with some of the folks
that have spoken with us today, there is an incredible amount of energy to help solve this problem.
And if dollars are the concern, I mean, Help Ourselves Mutual Aid for which many of these folks work
is on a shoestring budget that is entirely donated by the people within it. And again, they are the
most helpful organization that I've personally experienced in the city. So I think maybe if we just,
maybe slightly fewer administrators, maybe slightly less writing, I don't know.
where the bulk of people's costs are without looking at their annual budgets. But it does seem like
maybe some folks here have some good input there. And once again, you said earlier, why not just leave
the space alone? Let the people doing this work continue. And once again, I laid out all of your reasons
that you have given for wanting to clear this. And it doesn't seem like any of that is backed up.
Why are you still trying to clear this? No, I also get that policy is changeable and fluid, and that
we're here to change the policy, because clearly the policy has failed. That's why we're here, is because
policy has just failed. And so I agree. The policy is contrived. So why don't we switch it? And I know
that's not a today meeting, because that is a... Jeff has opinions over there sitting in the corner.
something that we can work in to make sure that people aren't slipping through the cracks. I mean, your
policy is based around a housed society. It's based around the opinions of people who have always been
housed. And one lived experience coordinator, as Ash said, will never suffice for the type of details
that you need to be writing into here. So when we're talking about conversations about homelessness,
I don't mean just scrap head home and restart. Like Ash said, there's good points. I'm talking about
go into health code. Go into zoning.
go into county property and talk about like, where has this failed? Because it's not just the orgs that
are failing, it's your policy. And that is something that you can change. I was pointing at, I think
I want to expel some of my thoughts. And I take this the right way. I'm trying to help organize this
in a way that works with my mind, right? I hear what you said about change your policy, change these things.
the zoning policy, and I also heard that if we take this outside city limits, that causes other stresses
to the community. In my mind, we can't change the city's policies, but we can work with their policies.
We can't change a lot of the health code things because those come down from the state, but we can work
to make whatever comes out of those other conversations
getting it something that is sanitary is probably going to end up being more of a funding issue than
any other kind of issues. It's, you know, I've also heard a lot about this piece of property, and I
guess from where I'm sitting, this piece of property has become important because that's where people
are at, not necessarily because that's where if we were going to put people that they would want, they
would choose to be there, or we would choose, or the group supporting them think they would choose to
be there, right?
Is this the right piece of property if we're going to go through the process of working with the city,
trying to deal with those ordinances? If you're going to look at the health department and spend the
funding to meet those funding things, it seems to me the first question is, where? And then we can have
a whole conversation about, is it good to have one or is it good to have multiple smaller ones?
whole huge amount of questions that are in there. You know, I work for the county and, you know, I know
that the county commissioners are sympathetic, right? But they're also concerned because, you know,
part of our role as government is to follow rules. And we're not following rules here, right? I mean,
that's pretty clear. We can change some rules. We can't change some other rules, but I think the
In my mind, the bigger conversation is with everybody who has a stake locally. And then how do we make
the local decisions work within the state framework? It is already been laid out that leaving this property
alone for people to live there would be the best solution. Y'all are creating more problems by trying
to evict this by staying with the rules that clearly are not serving people. But we can't. Our hands
are also tied by state laws.
And so I think just because time is going on, I think we need to come up with resolutions about what
to do next. And I'm hearing calls for a meeting. We have worked with organizations that have successfully
opposed state policy before. Yes.
Oh, there's lots. I oppose state policy every year, as does the county. I mean, we're always up there
lobbying for and against things. So that's something we do. We just have to be very clear about what
policies need to be opposed. And to do that, we need a conversation with the city and with the county
council and with the city council and with the organizations and with you guys, because you have the
lived experience. And all of that needs to happen at another time when these organizations can be there
in person, because that's when these happen best.
I will say it would be incredibly, we talked about this in other meetings, it would be incredibly difficult
to get large portions of our camp present. Everyone in camp knew you guys were coming today and you
guys spoke to the people that wanted to speak to you. Just because we have had our necks stepped on
so many times by all these rules to which you guys are bound, there have been like,
homelessness liaison positions in local frameworks before. Trust was broken in every last one of them
in egregious ways. In fact, I was passing out flyers at all of the services yesterday trying to get
more people into the room. Thank you, Matt, for being the only person to show up. And the first one
I handed out to the very first woman I saw
Her response was, will it even matter if I show up to this? And that is the overall thought process.
People do not think that you guys are hearing us. Honestly, I don't think you guys are hearing us. Coming
to the meetings and trying this the polite way was not my idea. I think that we're going to get assurances
in this room, and they're going to hold for 30 or 90 days or whatever. And then we're going to get all
of our stuff chucked in the dumpster again.
trying the nice way is the first step, so that's where we are. And I very much hope to be proven wrong
in this situation. Well, I think one of the things that we've agreed to at least is to move forward
with some sort of written commitment. We can't write it now. I mean, we've got three minutes left. We
can't write it now, but we can
get that rolling. And it sounds like folks want a lot of time to look at it. So we couldn't get it done
before the end of the year because next week is our last meeting. And then the other option is to try
to move it forward more quickly and get it done before the end of the year. So I don't know if anybody
has any input on that. You'd have it would be heard at next week's meeting as an agenda item. That's
as quick as we can do it.
Otherwise, we're into next year, and it could be a very slow process. And I hate slow processing myself,
but. A foreign decision is made on that. Can we have the last one on Dean? Yeah, they've had their hand
up this entire time on and off. Hello, can you all hear me? Yeah. OK.
Hey, this is Jennifer Crosley, Monroe County Council Council President. I just wanted to say a couple
of things that I've been hearing throughout this conversation. First and foremost, I appreciate people
being able to have this conversation. I appreciate the activists and the folks that have lived experiences
who have taken their time out today to come and speak yet again on a near and dear pressing issue for
all of us.
a couple of things that I really wanted to address, and I hope that my assumptions are not true. But
from what I'm hearing, excuse me, a couple of things in this meeting is that we seem to be kind of passing
the buck as to who's responsible for what and why things aren't happening the way they are, because
this person didn't say this or this person didn't do that, or county council didn't do this. So I really hope
that we, I'm not hearing that correctly, because if so, we don't need to be throwing everybody underneath
the bus. That's the thing. The other thing that I wanted to say is, yeah, we all can play together and
work together, but commissioners, you all are the executive slash legislative body of county government.
And the checks and balances with us as county council is,
We are the fiscal body of the government. And so while I hear, you know, we can pass this on to council
and we can do all those things together and kind of moving the buck and the needle towards council and
kind of putting this responsibility on council, that's fine, up to a certain degree. But again, you
all have a decision-making process. And what I hear you all say, like, you know, we're in charge of
these types of things. We're in charge of the money. Yeah, that's true.
But we can also be overwritten the same. Just look at what happened in your meeting earlier with respect
to what we have put out with Seven Oaks. So yeah, we have the financial responsibility and that's what
we do. However, you all have to work well with us in the same and not trying to diminish the work that
we are doing. I do appreciate, I wish that we can have a conversation with
city council, the rest of county council, the mayor's office, you all as well, and those who haven't
lived experiences. And maybe we can come up with a solution to figure all this out together. The last
thing that I wanted to say is this all has something to do with the word housing. And again, housing
in Monroe County is a big old issue. I'm the only renter on county council. And we keep hearing everybody
today keep saying that there's an issue
with housing and the affordability and the issues that we all see with that. We can all agree that,
you know, we need different types of housing. However, in the county, it is up to the Planning Commission
to make sure this happens. And at the end of the day, it's also up to commissioners to approve these
different types of housing. So if we are really serious about those different types of things, we as
electeds need to take ownership and responsibilities, even when things don't go the way that we think
that they should go,
and admit that, move on, but passing the buck on and passing the blame on whomever or whatever, sit
down and have a conversation with them. If you're upset about how heading home got all this money and
they didn't have, or they didn't do what you think they should do, then sit them down and bring them
to a meeting. I would love to have them at the next meeting and they can have that type of conversation.
But again, I really hope as electeds that we really stop passing the buck on
that we're not pacifying these folks and saying all the things that they want to hear to their faces.
Yeah, we might say things that they might not necessarily agree with, but what's the common ground?
How can we move forward and how we can make this a solvable solution? Because I do think that it is,
but it's going to take us getting out of egos to make this happen. Thank you.
not ideal but we were trying to get this done as quickly as we could and our schedules are
limited unfortunately. But we do need to have further conversation and I think we can work on initiating.
It sounds like folks would rather have something sooner rather than later in terms of a policy written
up or would you prefer to have
but here's what we can do. We can get something written up and we can talk about it next week. And if
there's concerns or we can, we can postpone voting on it. So we could do kind of both. Okay. And then
moving forward, getting, getting something together with all, with city and county government together
to address core issues. So is that,
I've taken a lot of notes, so I've heard a lot of ideas.
We really do appreciate you all. Thank you. Thank you. I know it's hard for you to be here. Thank you.
And we really do appreciate everybody for their input. And we have a lot more conversations to have.